Mississippi Supreme Court: Fetus a person

[notyoueither]

Please feel free to hold your breath.

[chequita guevara]

When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery.

What makes a human being special is its consciousness. A fetus has no conscieouness and therefore is not human. It only has potential to become human, just like sperm and eggs, and in the age of cloning, stem cells (including adult stem cells). Granted, left alone, it is much more likely to become human (though it is not guaranteed). Nonetheless, it has not yet achieved personhood. It is human tissue, not a human being.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It is human tissue, not a human being.

The law says something different.

[Imran Siddiqui]

When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery.

As is forcing someone (and removing choice) to pay for a child they did not want, when the other party has a choice not to support if she wishes.

I hope you are consistent .

[Imran Siddiqui]

About time wade vs roe was put to bed, so to speak...

I realize you are Canadian, but you do realize that a state Supreme Court cannot override the US Supreme Court, no matter how strongly it argues?

If Mississippi tries to ban abortion based on this ruling (which has nothing, really, to do with abortion), it'll be struck down so fast, it'll make the state spin.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

When the father can carry the child to term in his own body, then he can demand that the fetus be transfered rather than aborted. Until then, forcing someone to carry a child to term against their will is slavery.

As is forcing someone (and removing choice) to pay for a child they did not want, when the other party has a choice not to support if she wishes.

It depends. If the man has previously stated he did not want a child and took precautions so that he would not father a child (i.e., provides his own birth control), then yes, I think he should not have to support mother or child.

If, however, he was a selfish ***** who refused to wear a condom because he doesn't like the way it feels and instead relied on (or demanded) the woman to either provide protection for herself or assumed she would get an abortion, well, then, too bad. Also, if he didn't make things clear beforehand; don't be careless.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If, however, he was a selfish ***** who refused to wear a condom because he doesn't like the way it feels and instead relied on (or demanded) the woman to either provide protection for herself or assumed she would get an abortion, well, then, too bad.

Does this mean if the woman was selfish and refused to use birth control and instead relied on the male to use condoms, and when he didn't have any went on with it anyway, that she shouldn't have the right to an abortion?



The woman has (and SHOULD have) a choice, no matter how careful or irresponsible she was, to support a child or not. The man should have the same choice (before the birth of the child.. or before the last day it is legally permissible to get an abortion, of course).

[ajbera]

I tend to feel the fetus's viability outside the mother plays a part in determining it's 'personhood.' A 60 day old fetus cannot possibly survive independent of the mother, thus it can be terminated. A 180 day old infant can reasonably be expected to survive outside the womb given medical care, so should not be terminated. This period of time will change as technology improves. I started a thread with two ectogenesis articles that detailed artificial wombs that should be a few pages back... neat stuff.

And although I feel it could be potentially be an infringement on personal liberty to force someone to carry a fetus to term (plenty of arguments both for and against this position), I don't believe that a woman has the right to demand the death of a fetus just because it's 'hers'... if it can be removed and nurtured without her, no need to kill it.

So, I'm grudgingly pro-choice, but feel it's best done as early as possible. 2nd trimester abortions really bother me, 3rd are out unless mother is threatened/fetus is a mutie. I don't necessarily agree with the rape provision (why compound the tragedy of rape with the tragedy of abortion?), and think it's just a horrible thing even when completely justified.

In a perfect world, abortions would be freely available to all women without restriction, but nobody would ever need (or want) to get one.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The woman has (and SHOULD have) a choice,

Actually, she doesn't. She has to take care of the child regardless, unless she puts it up for adoption. I'm pretty sure that society would take a very dim view of her simply walking away from the child after giving birth, like any man is capable of doing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually, she doesn't.

Because abortion doesn't exist .

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Actually, she doesn't. She has to take care of the child regardless, unless she puts it up for adoption. I'm pretty sure that society would take a very dim view of her simply walking away from the child after giving birth, like any man is capable of doing.

Horse Hockey!

[Ramo]

Crappy decision. A fetus is a person, or a nonperson, regardless of whether the mother consents to killing it.

[DinoDoc]

Could you be a little more confusing Ramo?

[Urban Ranger]

What he was saying is a fetus is either a person or a nonperson. This status does not change regardless of whether the mother is going to abort it or not.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
What he was saying is a fetus is either a person or a nonperson.

Do you mean to say neither? Because that would be a little less confusing.