House Passes Anti-Abortion Bill

[Nulono]

It is certainly NOT true that personhood of the unborn must be based in religion any more than personhood of the born must be based in religion.

Give me a legal foundation for doing it within the context of American common law, then.

Preferably, one that isn't circular.

It is also grasping for straws to say that telling a mother she can't kill her child means that the government can control their every action. We have personhood for infants, but we don't supervise everything parents do.

I take it you've never had to deal with Child Protective Services.

When did I claim abortion was illegal? I've been saying it should be.

[Nulono]

It is also grasping for straws to say that telling a mother she can't kill her child means that the government can control their every action. We have personhood for infants, but we don't supervise everything parents do.

I take it you've never had to deal with Child Protective Services.

CPS doesn't investigate unless there's a reason. We don't just lock up parents willy-nilly.

[Takaram]

It is certainly NOT true that personhood of the unborn must be based in religion any more than personhood of the born must be based in religion. It is also grasping for straws to say that telling a mother she can't kill her child means that the government can control their every action. We have personhood for infants, but we don't supervise everything parents do.

Give me a legal foundation for doing it within the context of American common law, then.

Preferably, one that isn't circular.

There isn't one. Hell, all of this "Abortion is baby-killing" didn't really come about until after Roe v. Wade. Before then it was mostly worry about the mother's health. For everything other than the abortion debate, we always count life as beginning at birth. We don't celebrate our "conceptionday", right? Do our tombstones read the day of our birth to death or conception to death?

[Nulono]

Give me a legal foundation for doing it within the context of American common law, then.

Preferably, one that isn't circular.

There isn't one. Hell, all of this "Abortion is baby-killing" didn't really come about until after Roe v. Wade. Before then it was mostly worry about the mother's health. For everything other than the abortion debate, we always count life as beginning at birth. We don't celebrate our "conceptionday", right? Do our tombstones read the day of our birth to death or conception to death?

That's a cultural tradition, and has no ethical relevance. Some cultures count from conception. Biologically, there's a new human organism at conception.

[Alien Space Bats]

Give me a legal foundation for doing it within the context of American common law, then.

Preferably, one that isn't circular.

When did I claim abortion was illegal? I've been saying it should be.

So, in other words, there is in fact no existing foundation under American law for considering the "pre-born" to be full legal persons, entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and protections of either U.S. citizens or visiting/resident aliens, within whatever reasonable age restrictions that may exist under local or Federal law?

The whole idea that they should be full legal persons is one that you have embraced because you think that it ought to be so, not because there is any basis for it in our current practice, right? You admit this?

[Takaram]

There isn't one. Hell, all of this "Abortion is baby-killing" didn't really come about until after Roe v. Wade. Before then it was mostly worry about the mother's health. For everything other than the abortion debate, we always count life as beginning at birth. We don't celebrate our "conceptionday", right? Do our tombstones read the day of our birth to death or conception to death?

That's a cultural tradition, and has no ethical relevance. Some cultures count from conception. Biologically, there's a new human organism at conception.

Our culture has never measured life from conception, and other than in the abortion debate, we still don't. Hell, most people don't even know exactly when they are conceived. That entire argument sprang from an opposition to abortion, not the other way around.

[Alien Space Bats]

I take it you've never had to deal with Child Protective Services.

CPS doesn't investigate unless there's a reason. We don't just lock up parents willy-nilly.

CPS shows up because someone has tipped them off: A teacher, a neighbor, a stranger who claims to have seen something. At that point, they have the right to come in and investigate with damned little oversight. I can give you examples, if you'd like.

Under the system you propose, it could just as easily work the same way: Someone sees a pregnant mother smoking, or having a glass of wine with dinner, or thinks she's working too far into her pregnancy, and the call gets made. Enter CPS.

But then, I'll double down on my earlier guess: You've never had to deal with them before, have you?

[Unchecked Expansion]

That's a cultural tradition, and has no ethical relevance. Some cultures count from conception. Biologically, there's a new human organism at conception.

there isn't a new person though

[Tekania]

When did I claim abortion was illegal? I've been saying it should be.

So, in other words, there is in fact no existing foundation under American law for considering the "pre-born" to be full legal persons, entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and protections of either U.S. citizens or visiting/resident aliens, within whatever reasonable age restrictions that may exist under local or Federal law?

The whole idea that they should be full legal persons is one that you have embraced because you think that it ought to be so, not because there is any basis for it in our current practice, right? You admit this?

Indeed, he starts with the premise they are persons, and then attempts to find whatever sliver of evidence may support that conclusion; rather than attempt to develop a reasonable definition of personhood and then see if it applies.

[Nulono]

That's a cultural tradition, and has no ethical relevance. Some cultures count from conception. Biologically, there's a new human organism at conception.

Our culture has never measured life from conception, and other than in the abortion debate, we still don't. Hell, most people don't even know exactly when they are conceived. That entire argument sprang from an opposition to abortion, not the other way around.

Not even the pregnant woman knows exactly when the fetus was conceived! That's why we count pregnancy from the last menstrual period, because you just can't know. It's a cultural tradition, and has no moral significance.

When did I claim abortion was illegal? I've been saying it should be.

So, in other words, there is in fact no existing foundation under American law for considering the "pre-born" to be full legal persons, entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and protections of either U.S. citizens or visiting/resident aliens, within whatever reasonable age restrictions that may exist under local or Federal law?

The whole idea that they should be full legal persons is one that you have embraced because you think that it ought to be so, not because there is any basis for it in our current practice, right? You admit this?

I'm not willing to say there's no basis, because I'm not a lawyer. Under current law, the fetus is not a person. I disagree with this, and believe the fetus should be a legal person, and I support the current legislative efforts to this end.

[Takaram]

Our culture has never measured life from conception, and other than in the abortion debate, we still don't. Hell, most people don't even know exactly when they are conceived. That entire argument sprang from an opposition to abortion, not the other way around.

Not even the pregnant woman knows exactly when the fetus was conceived! That's why we count pregnancy from the last menstrual period, because you just can't know. It's a cultural tradition, and has no moral significance.

Moral significance is relative. The whole "personhood at conception" argument is a polarizing one. The only thing it does it serve to make reasonable debate on the issue near impossible. When one side is accusing the other of killing millions of babies, it tends to make the whole debate rather charged and pointless.

[Tekania]

All abortion should be banned. It is a Goddamn unborn Baby for Christ's sake!!!!!

The irony in the context vs. wording of your statement burns.

[Nulono]

CPS doesn't investigate unless there's a reason. We don't just lock up parents willy-nilly.

CPS shows up because someone has tipped them off: A teacher, a neighbor, a stranger who claims to have seen something. At that point, they have the right to come in and investigate with damned little oversight. I can give you examples, if you'd like.

Under the system you propose, it could just as easily work the same way: Someone sees a pregnant mother smoking, or having a glass of wine with dinner, or thinks she's working too far into her pregnancy, and the call gets made. Enter CPS.

But then, I'll double down on my earlier guess: You've never had to deal with them before, have you?

If there's reasonable cause, I think that CPS could reasonably step in. This is a far cry from locking up anyone who might possibly be pregnant.

So, in other words, there is in fact no existing foundation under American law for considering the "pre-born" to be full legal persons, entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and protections of either U.S. citizens or visiting/resident aliens, within whatever reasonable age restrictions that may exist under local or Federal law?

The whole idea that they should be full legal persons is one that you have embraced because you think that it ought to be so, not because there is any basis for it in our current practice, right? You admit this?

Indeed, he starts with the premise they are persons, and then attempts to find whatever sliver of evidence may support that conclusion; rather than attempt to develop a reasonable definition of personhood and then see if it applies.

Any human is a person. I've looked into other definitions, and none were adequate. Is a fetus a human? Yes. Check done.
If the fetus weren't a human, I'd have nothing against abortion.

[Nulono]

Not even the pregnant woman knows exactly when the fetus was conceived! That's why we count pregnancy from the last menstrual period, because you just can't know. It's a cultural tradition, and has no moral significance.

Moral significance is relative. The whole "personhood at conception" argument is a polarizing one. The only thing it does it serve to make reasonable debate on the issue near impossible. When one side is accusing the other of killing millions of babies, it tends to make the whole debate rather charged and pointless.

Is the fetus a person in cultures that count from conception? Is a newborn not a person in a culture that starts counting later? Would a fetus become a person if we started counting from conception?

[Alien Space Bats]

Hell, all of this "Abortion is baby-killing" didn't really come about until after Roe v. Wade. Before then it was mostly worry about the mother's health. For everything other than the abortion debate, we always count life as beginning at birth. We don't celebrate our "conceptionday", right? Do our tombstones read the day of our birth to death or conception to death?

That's a cultural tradition, and has no ethical relevance. Some cultures count from conception. Biologically, there's a new human organism at conception.

Exactly! What Blackmun found is that there are many, many different traditions, both religious, cultural, and legal. He could not choose to embrace any of the disparate religious or cultural traditions, and the legal ones all pointed (in his estimation, anyway) to our move to criminalize abortion being a fairly late development in American legal history, mostly dating to the late 19th Century (the same period, not surprisingly, as the host of Blue Laws and the first stirrings of Prohibition [surprise, surprise]). On that basis, absent a long-standing tradition of criminalizing abortion that dated back to the beginnings of our country, he judged that the argument that a compelling state interest that was not based on religious feeling existed was, in fact, bunk.

Abortion was banned in the late 19th and early 20th Century not because people were concerned about the rights of the unborn, or even because they believed that the unborn were "people" in any legal sense (Blackmun even looked at double-murder statutes for pregnant women, or questions regarding whether a pregnant woman could get a stay of execution until she gave birth), but because a society obsessed with sexual morality wanted to ban a practice that was seen as a form of birth control, just as they passed laws against condoms and "pessaries".

IOW, it wasn't "all about the children"; it was "all about the sin and wickedness of unlicensed sexual congress".

[Takaram]

Moral significance is relative. The whole "personhood at conception" argument is a polarizing one. The only thing it does it serve to make reasonable debate on the issue near impossible. When one side is accusing the other of killing millions of babies, it tends to make the whole debate rather charged and pointless.

Is the fetus a person in cultures that count from conception? Is a newborn not a person in a culture that starts counting later? Would a fetus become a person if we started counting from conception?

Perhaps. However, at this time we do not, invalidating the whole argument. We must legally and culturally redefine a fetus as an independent person before that argument takes on validity.

[Nulono]

That's a cultural tradition, and has no ethical relevance. Some cultures count from conception. Biologically, there's a new human organism at conception.

Exactly! What Blackmun found is that there are many, many different traditions, both religious, cultural, and legal. He could not choose to embrace any of the disparate religious or cultural traditions, and the legal ones all pointed (in his estimation, anyway) to our move to criminalize abortion being a fairly late development in American legal history, mostly dating to the late 19th Century (the same period, not surprisingly, as the host of Blue Laws and the first stirrings of Prohibition [surprise, surprise]). On that basis, absent a long-standing tradition of criminalizing abortion that dated back to the beginnings of our country, he judged that the argument that a compelling state interest that was not based on religious feeling existed was, in fact, bunk.

Abortion was banned in the late 19th and early 20th Century not because people were concerned about the rights of the unborn, or even because they believed that the unborn were "people" in any legal sense (Blackmun even looked at double-murder statutes for pregnant women, or questions regarding whether a pregnant woman could get a stay of execution until she gave birth), but because a society obsessed with sexual morality wanted to ban a practice that was seen as a form of birth control, just as they passed laws against condoms and "pessaries".

IOW, it wasn't "all about the children"; it was "all about the sin and wickedness of unlicensed sexual congress".

The motives of people in the 19th century for banning abortion do not negate the personhood of the unborn.

[Tekania]

Any human is a person. I've looked into other definitions, and none were adequate. Is a fetus a human? Yes. Check done.
If the fetus weren't a human, I'd have nothing against abortion.

That's an absurd definition of personhood to begin with, to be limited purely based upon the dna footprint and biological composition of a thing. It would assentially DENY personhood to any other self-aware beings that aren't biological members of homo sapien sapien. Not an adequate definition at all... It must be scraped if reason it to prevail.

[Nulono]

Any human is a person. I've looked into other definitions, and none were adequate. Is a fetus a human? Yes. Check done.
If the fetus weren't a human, I'd have nothing against abortion.

That's an absurd definition of personhood to begin with, to be limited purely based upon the dna footprint and biological composition of a thing. It would assentially DENY personhood to any other self-aware beings that aren't biological members of homo sapien sapien. Not an adequate definition at all... It must be scraped if reason it to prevail.

So you think it's more reasonable to define personhood in such a way as to exclude newborns and the mentally handicapped from legal protection? Not to mention self-awareness ISN'T the legal standard for personhood.

[Takaram]

That's an absurd definition of personhood to begin with, to be limited purely based upon the dna footprint and biological composition of a thing. It would assentially DENY personhood to any other self-aware beings that aren't biological members of homo sapien sapien. Not an adequate definition at all... It must be scraped if reason it to prevail.

So you think it's more reasonable to define personhood in such a way as to exclude newborns and the mentally handicapped?

I think he's saying that it is more reasonable to define personhood in a way that wouldn't rule out other organisms (or AIs) just because we want to cover a fetus. I'd be more concerned about that intelligent organism's rights than the fetus's, regardless of the genetic differences.

[Nulono]

So you think it's more reasonable to define personhood in such a way as to exclude newborns and the mentally handicapped?

I think he's saying that it is more reasonable to define personhood in a way that wouldn't rule out other organisms (or AIs) just because we want to cover a fetus. I'd be more concerned about that intelligent organism's rights than the fetus's, regardless of the genetic differences.

If you think you have a better definition, I'd be glad to hear it.

[Takaram]

I think he's saying that it is more reasonable to define personhood in a way that wouldn't rule out other organisms (or AIs) just because we want to cover a fetus. I'd be more concerned about that intelligent organism's rights than the fetus's, regardless of the genetic differences.

If you think you have a better definition, I'd be glad to hear it.

I think out current one works quite well in this regard.

[Alien Space Bats]

So, in other words, there is in fact no existing foundation under American law for considering the "pre-born" to be full legal persons, entitled to all of the rights, privileges, and protections of either U.S. citizens or visiting/resident aliens, within whatever reasonable age restrictions that may exist under local or Federal law?

The whole idea that they should be full legal persons is one that you have embraced because you think that it ought to be so, not because there is any basis for it in our current practice, right? You admit this?

I'm not willing to say there's no basis, because I'm not a lawyer. Under current law, the fetus is not a person. I disagree with this, and believe the fetus should be a legal person, and I support the current legislative efforts to this end.

It's unlikely that such efforts can be achieved absent a Constitutional Amendment.

That said, I would be very reluctant to see such an Amendment. The consequences for pregnant women (or women who might be pregnant), as well as the inevitable argument that would arise regarding whether America should retain jus soli or go entirely with jus sanguinis, or whether both parents should have to be citizens rather than just one (and whether it should only be the female) are cans of worms I'd rather not open.

That said, I hope you realize that you have removed most of the moral force behind your position. You think that legal personhood should begin at conception; that doesn't mean that others do, nor does it mean that those who don't are necessarily immoral monsters (or even wrong in anyone's eyes but yours, and your judgement just doesn't mean that much to the rest of us). You admit that such a position has no basis in American law or legal tradition, and that it is wholly derived from your personal moral position, wherever that comes from.

In short, it's your opinion - and as such has no more or less weight than anybody else's.

[Aeronos]

When did I claim abortion was illegal? I've been saying it should be.

It won't do anything. All that will happen is women who don't want the baby will do black market or home abortions, thus not only resulting in an aborted baby, but also a life-threatened host. The same argument goes with drugs. I personally oppose drugs, but as Prohibition + the War on Drugs shows, it's better to have it legal + state regulated, than forced directly onto the black market just to please some moral holier-than-thous.

Personally, I have no problem with abortion, even though I wouldn't do it myself, nor could I even if I wanted to (I am infertile), but I find the above logic inescapable and objective in torpedoing the anti-abortion argument, as opposed to the whole "what is life?!" subjectivity battle.

[Nulono]

I'm not willing to say there's no basis, because I'm not a lawyer. Under current law, the fetus is not a person. I disagree with this, and believe the fetus should be a legal person, and I support the current legislative efforts to this end.

It's unlikely that such efforts can be achieved absent a Constitutional Amendment.

That said, I would be very reluctant to see such an Amendment. The consequences for pregnant women (or women who might be pregnant), as well as the inevitable argument that would arise regarding whether America should retain jus soli or go entirely with jus sanguinis, or whether both parents should have to be citizens rather than just one (and whether it should only be the female) are cans of worms I'd rather not open.

That said, I hope you realize that you have removed most of the moral force behind your position. You think that legal personhood should begin at conception; that doesn't mean that others do, nor does it mean that those who don't are necessarily immoral monsters (or even wrong in anyone's eyes but yours, and your judgement just doesn't mean that much to the rest of us). You admit that such a position has no basis in American law or legal tradition, and that it is wholly derived from your personal moral position, wherever that comes from.

In short, it's your opinion - and as such has no more or less weight than anybody else's.

Abolition didn't have basis in law, and in fact slavery was a constitutionally protected right. Abolitionists imposed their personal moral position on disagreeing Southerners.

If you think you have a better definition, I'd be glad to hear it.

I think out current one works quite well in this regard.

That you have to be born and human? How is that better?