Liberals: Personhood Starts With Paul Ryan’s Jizz

[kentonio]

Have you ever heard a mother or father refer to their child as their baby before it was born? Have you ever heard other people refer to babies before they were born? Do people call them fetuses where you are from? Stick your legal, scientific and medical terms up yer ass.

Some people refer to their penises in the third person, this must mean that the penis is a seperate person who should be given the same voting rights as everyone else. One penis one vote!

[Kidlicious]

Some people refer to their penises in the third person, this must mean that the penis is a seperate person who should be given the same voting rights as everyone else. One penis one vote!

[giblets]

Have you ever heard a mother or father refer to their child as their baby before it was born? Have you ever heard other people refer to babies before they were born? Do people call them fetuses where you are from? Stick your legal, scientific and medical terms up yer ass.

Oh wowee! A large part of the general population, many of whom are "pro-life" and consider a clump of cells to be a person, refer to a fetus as a "baby"! I guess if your beliefs are somewhat popular then they must be true after all

[dannubis]

WOOSSHHH !!!!

[Elok]

Hog "bung"? Pig rectum? Fake calamari on the plate made from aforementioned ingredients? And the consumer doesn't know? Listen to today's This American Life.

http://herculodge.typepad.com/herculodge/2013/01/todays-this-american-life-exposes-the-truth-about-calamari-hog-bung.html

[MichaeltheGreat]

How does this 'collection of cells' differ from the 'collection of cells' we term a toddler?

Are you for real? Look at a photo of a five day blastocyst, and look at a photo of a toddler.

I believe the fact that everyone's life passed through this point is sufficient.

Which is nice for you. I believe you should be a UN special envoy to al Shabaab. (Actually, I don't, just an example). It is one thing to have a belief, it is another to impose that belief on others.

Your argument was that, "Roe banned late term abortions", I'm arguing that Roe did no such thing. Your definition is incorrect. Since exactly zero women have been charged with having a late term abortion, I can only conclude that the actual result is that Roe actually permits all abortions.

More semantic horse****? Roe expressly states that the states are free to regulate and prohibit post-viability abortions. Have you even read the opinion, or are you just playing rhetorical games and making up facts as you go along? What's your source for claiming that "exactly zero women have been charged?" If doctors are refusiing to perform post-viability abortions in states which prohibit those, then there are no prosecutions to be had, because there is no violation of law. It is beyond non-sensical to state that Roe permits all abortions, when it is absolutely clear by its terms that it confirms the power of states to prohibit them. You're smarter than that, friend, so why the trolling?

No, what I meant is how does fertilization 'fail to meet' this same standard? Sorry for being unclear.

Because there is no rational, secular basis for concluding that a fertilized egg acquires legal personhood.

Thank you. Then it doesn't matter if you don't believe that someone is not a person. If someone is a person then legally restraining you from killing them is legal. Arguing that 'interfering in someone's life is wrong', is a red herring. It is fine to 'intervene in someone's life', when another person's life is at stake.

What matters is what the law and society defines.

You are aware that children at 8 months are considered to be a fetus? Apparently not.

Until the moment of birth, yes, but labor can be induced and the 8 month fetus is fully functional in a biological sense as a neonate. There is an overlap - a viable fetus can have birth induced. It is functionally identical to a child, i.e. a neonate infant, although potentially with a dangerously low weight and limited lung development so as to require major medical intervention.

Nope. Embryos are implanted into the mother.

They'd die, if so, since there is no placenta. The terms are used imprecisely, since people are familiar with the term embryo (it also sounds warmer and fuzzier than "blastocyst"), and blastocyst, like zygote and morula, are stages of embryonic development - as is a fetus. http://www.advancedfertility.com/bla...nancyrates.htm uses both terms. The blastocyst comprises two primary cell structures, one of which develops into the embryo, the other develops into the placenta. Blastocyst is the more precise and accurate term. There's also a nice picture in there that shows you how it's different from a toddler.

Only one was implanted into Louise Brown's mother. Ergo we can prove that the DNA sampled at fertilization is the same DNA sampled at birth. In order to prove that a test-tube baby were in fact possible - you would have had to prove this continuity. If the DNA did not match, then that would be evidence against the possibility of a test-tube baby. Which is not the case.

Congratulations, you've again "proved" something irrelevant to abortion and not at issue.

If I call someone an infant, does that mean they are no longer a person? Embryo and fetus refer to different developmental stages in life, no different than teenager or toddler.

How many teenagers or toddlers are biologically wired to and contained within a specific host individual because they're anatomically incapable of survival without that fixed biological connection?

Same child, MTG. I could take an ultrasound at 4 months and 5 months for the same child and show you that this is the case. The identity of the child does not change between 4, 5 and 6 months.

The genetic identity is irrelevant to the question of legal personhood.

*Sigh*.

Empiricism requires observation. Would anyone observe that the same person at 17 is not the same person at 19? No. Ergo, 18 is not an empirical standard.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph 18 is empirical, it's an event that can be observed. Or do you not use calendars or celebrate birthdays where you are? Outside of Benistan, we do.


Missed a few.

[MikeH]

Oh it's good to have you back MtG.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Have you ever heard a mother or father refer to their child as their baby before it was born? Have you ever heard other people refer to babies before they were born? Do people call them fetuses where you are from? Stick your legal, scientific and medical terms up yer ass.

Yes, because we should all legislate and impose our social vision on the basis of emotion and popular terminology of ooey-cooey hopeful parents to be.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Oh it's good to have you back MtG.

Thanks. Ben got me through some boredom and a bit of writing block, now I have work to do.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Who says they have to be handled criminally?

I've got time for a few more. To answer your question, the US Constution. What you're proposing falls outside the limits of civil law.

Finally. You concede the point.

I never argued the pointless. That was you.

I agree with you - personhood is quite another standard. How do we legally establish a person's identity from another person?

Personhood != identity of a person. Personhood = the eligibility for legal rights, privileges, immunities and protections afforded persons. Personally, my cat is smarter than most Poly posters. I think he should have legal personhood (tax deduction would be nice too). His identity is irrelevant to determination of that issue.

Yes, but the ovum itself ceases to exist after fertilization. There is no such thing as a 'fertilized egg'.

There is, actually. It's not an instanteous process. In theory, if you timed it correctly, you could freeze and preserve the egg just at the point when it contained distinct sperm chromosomes in it, but they had not combined with the ovum's chromosomes (e.g. you had foreign haploid DNA within a haploid cell, but they had not formed a diploid, or just after that point before the first cell division. Technically the latter case is the zygote.

So if I were to collect your sperm samples, and fertilize them and keep them tucked away, and then later on, implant them into a friend of mine, would you care then? Legally it is a huge issue and there have been quite a few court cases over it. I suppose I could drag out precedents, but will you take my word for it so that I don't have to dig them up?

Sperm, when donated, is covered under the laws of personal property. As are eggs, when donated or removed from the woman.

I agree, but that is why I'm giving you this particular argument, and not that argument. Just because someone may believe in X, doesn't mean that X is a part of every argument that they make. It is possible to give a cogent prolife argument without making reference to religion at all.

Yes, there can be non-theistic irrationality, as well as theistic irrationality. The public policy debate is driven by religiously affilitated groups. Since I don't plan to have an abortion any time soon, all I'm interested in is the public policy debate.

Legal Personhood is binary. You either are or you aren't.

The question is at what point does it occur.

I'll see what I can find on this. I'm aware of precedents but I'm not sure which cases specifically. Writing it on my to-do list tomorrow.

Read the case law carefully. Remember, the inheritance must be perfected in favor of a fetus, not merely designated.

Well, the problem with child support (and I haven't brought this in yet), but it looks like I won't have to make that argument. Interesting. Usually I have to resort to that. Can be proven at 8 weeks, which explains why those services are there if the divorce courts require evidence of paernity + pregnancy.

And child support doesn't trigger unless and until birth.

Skipping ahead a few chapters. I'm not arguing that, MtG.

Those are all inherent consequences. As you pointed out, personhood is binary.

The argument is that personhood is binary. You can't go almost sorta potential person. And that's in the 14th.

Please quote the language in the 14th Amendment relating to stage of fetal development.

Then killing someone who is proven to be a person is still wrong. Arguing, "I didn't believe they were a person" won't work.

If it's not a person under the law, there is noone to kill and no crime committed. Personal beliefs are irrelevant.

Even if someone is trying to kill someone else? I couldn't even sit on them?

Asked and answered. If you try to physically restrain someone who is attempting to receive a legal abortion, you are committing crimes. They are not. Back in the mid 80s, there was an ironic case of this in San Diego. Some self-appointed whackjob guardians of morals were blockading a whole medical building entrance where an Ob-Gyn who performed abortions had his office. They saw a clearly pregnant woman head toward the building, and several individuals physically accosted her and got in her face. Turned out she'd broken her water and was trying to prevent miscarriage. They assured that she wasn't able to do so.

Then I don't see why he should be required to pay child support for an unwanted child. If the mother cannot be forced to carry to term, then the father cannot be compelled to support the mother and child.

Sure he can. He made a choice where to put his dick. Consequences flow from that choice.

I've already established continuity via DNA, which you conceded awhile back. If continuity exists than level of development fails as there is no distinction in identity across different ages.

Continuity is irrelevant. Genetic identity is irrelevant. The instant state of development at the time the procedure would be performed is the only rational standard from a medical point of view, and present state, not future potential state, is the only legally cognizable state.

It actually doesn't matter - now that I've established continuity, all I have to prove is that the unborn child at any point of development before birth is a person.

Good luck. You can't "prove" or "disprove" either way. A "person" is a chosen legal construct. Personhood itself is defined in the law. Indians weren't persons in US law until 1879. Cats aren't persons under the law now. If we had a "Cat Personhood Amendment" and it passed , then a cat would be a person for all legal purposes. The only factual question would be whether the party in question met the established definition of "cat" and thus qualified for personhood. Dog people could then repeal the Cat Personhood Amendment, and cats would no longer be persons, though the cat was still the same cat as before.

It doesn't depend. Someone else getting executed does not deprive you of your natural rights. If this were so, then your right to freedom of speech ended with Patrick Henry.

My "right" to freedom of speech only exists, if and to the extent it is recognized in the law where I am. You have no "right" to freedom of speech in the Mog. If al Shabaab doesn't like what you have to say, they will closely examine your vocal cords. Nothing "natural" about it - all a human construct.

Free exercise of religion does exist and prevents forcing Catholics to pay for contraception.

That depends too. Certainly for themselves, or for their churches or church run charities. However, if you're Catholic and go into business and engage in public commerce, then there is a balancing test. Same thing with Jehovah's witnesses and blood transfusions. Or Christian Scientists. Or Scientologists and prescription coverage for anti-depressents.

You don't get to engage in commerce in the public realm and then carve out whatever exception you think applies to you and your employees.

[MrFun]

On the subject of abortion in the US. May as well talk about the Taleban's position on the issue. It's close to yours.

The hue and cry is kneejerk reflexive reaction to rather disingenuous legislation, banning a specific procedure, but not all late term abortions. It's part of a (in some cases admitted) strategy of incrementalization and also simply trying to pack the books with abortion laws to make the pro-choice groups go broke trying to litigate them all. Sort of like the way Scientology got its tax exemption by inducing thousands of members to concurrently sue the IRS.

I'm surprised DD is not a fanatical Muslim cleric with his hatred for women.

[MichaeltheGreat]

DD is a nice guy. A troll, but I like him. It's not hatred, it's a distorted view.

[MrFun]

I was trolling.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I know.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben must be Mike's special project

Nah. This is all in good fun. Busy now, will have some time later.