Rape, Abortion, and "Personhood"

Physbang... none of this is helpful, constructive or really even necessary. It's uncalled for, absurd and most certainly not realistic. I will need to ignore your contributions in this thread because frankly, they are intolerable. I will not place you on ignore because your contributions in other threads are very good. But this "campaign to promote rape" is just way out of line. If you have so much beef with the fact men cannot conceive, dude please take it up with God, Allah, Darwin or whatever floats your boat.
EDIT-moved from post number 201

Possibly true, because what you just said went right over my head.
Let's take this one step by step.

Ok, Bells, just pass over the fact without comment that I can be an idiot sometimes... What initiative?
I came barging in here arguing my position- ok fine... But yeah- what initiative?

Clearly, I cannot agree with that, because placing it at conception, to my political position is to give something that does not have a human brain priority over something that does not have a human brain.
Forgive me Bowser...

Ok, if there is an initiative for Law that does this, I'm totally against it.

Note above where I said I'm an idiot sometimes. But look at the bright side... All of you now know my position on abortion...
Ok ok ok ok For disrupting the actual intent of the thread, to everyone... damnit.
I hate this.
I'm sorry for creating such a distraction. Somewhere at reading the first few posts, I was under an entirely different impression and once things got going and heated, I really didn't go back and read the O.P. Tiassa, may you forgive that.

On this one, I disagree. Claiming that I'm promoting rape was uncalled for even if I agreed with that initiative- which I don't think I do... (I gotta go look up what that is all about now... sigh).

Faceplant deserved.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Edit: This post was typed before the glaring faceplant above, so a great deal of it relates to earlier debate.
Bells, I took my time to try to make this response as coherent as possible. I would prefer you to read what's in the spoilers and encourage you to do so. I've done my best to not attack you in any way, although some political positions make it difficult to make a point without it sounding like an attack. It's a long post and I ask for your patience.
Contained within a spoiler are the words, "I'm sorry." Since that should be public, I will state that part here, the rest is in spoilers to keep other readers from being subjected to the little War here.
I'm sorry Bells, if at any time my failures at expressing what I was trying to express and any failures on both our parts to understand the others intent (Sorry but it's true) caused my words to cause you the deep offense that they did.

Spoiler

It was not my intention to accuse you of endorsing murder- it was my intention to show you that some problems with this complex topic can appear to be a support of that. That is combined with my bringing up your personal family in a quote of a statement you had made about your son. The intent was to show you that you valued life in the same manner I was advocating, it was not intended to be an act of meanness, though I expressed fearfully that you may take it that way and said I was sorry for bringing up such a personal thing.

Spoiler

Ok Bells, look - there is something you need to accept as an axiom here. It is not my intention to dishonestly report how you come across. If you can accept that, I won't blatantly accuse you of dishonestly representing me unless I can show it to be the case. You only accuse me if you can show I intended to misrepresent you- OK? Because this is not working at all and while we may disagree on certain points, I have no need to lie about what you have said. Each of us is missing valid points the other makes due to bickering. Let's not bicker. That includes accusations. Give me some reasonable benefit of the doubt- peace treaty- that I'm not out to slnader your name and I will do the same for you.

On topic for this, I was under the impression and still am even after reading that entire post in question, that you are excusing Late Term Abortions citing examples of extreme abuse or danger to the mother- a point where I agree that the mother must have the right to choose- regardless of the fact that the political position of "Pro-Choice or nothing" requires that she must also be permitted to kill the (item in womb in late term) even if her life is not in danger or even if there is no justifiable reason. Can you see the dilemma here? Can you see why that smacks, to me, of killing a child right after childbirth? Because it makes no difference! The kill problem remains the same.
Now, if my position of abortion being legal in Late Term only covers mothers who are at risk, but does not allow Late Term Abortion for frivolous reasons and you say no one would have frivolous reasons- wouldn't that satisfy both our criteria? Since we both agree she has the right to choose to defend herself and you believe that late term abortions are unlikely to be frivolous- why do you resist the position I hold so strongly?
My beef is that an extreme Pro-Choice position allows frivolous killing right before birth. Even if unlikely, it would still be permitted and that makes no sense to me. That is like allowing a mother to kill a baby 1 day after birth. It may not be likely to happen, but why make it law that allows even an unlikely killing?

Spoiler

Got me ignorant there...

Spoiler

Neither of these statements are accurate.

Statements about neonticide are not being ignored- I'm reading and considering the points.

Spoiler

Ok, let's get blunt here. Embryos is your use of wording, not mine. What you are accusing me of, you are doing right here. This suggests that neither of us want to lie about the other, but rather, have misunderstandings about what each of us is representing.
I refer to a (what you call in the womb) as having an established brain, therefor about 22 -24 weeks- I don't really know, to be honest when the brain is established. I do know that it's well beyond the embryo stage which ends at eight weeks. I've read up on this quite a bit and I cannot find a definite answer because development varies. I believe the brain is the indication- when it is established, because our brains are essentially what make us human. It's who we are. It's the key thing. They develop all our lives, up until we die. We can survive without other organs today, even with the help of machines. But without a brain, you're simply not a person. I have clarified this time frame before already so continued insistence that I said you want to kill children (Embryos) simply will be ignored. I've addressed this several times.
Bells, I am sorry for any miscommunication. Let's communicate effectively and get it behind us. I can plainly see how if you think I've accused you of endorsing murdering children, how that must be... something difficult to describe. It's a terrible thing. But consider my political position as I've described it as best that I can- if a woman is allowed to kill a (thing in womb- V.I. called it a maggot/parasite) frivolously, not matter how unlikely, and is protected to do so by law- I find that just as appalling as you find the idea that "you endorse this behavior" appalling. Consider that by saying "I support Pro-Choice all the way up until late term and no matter what reason the mother chooses" -it does endorse that because it allows it. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.
It IS appalling and it is why I have the Moderate Pro Choice position that I have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Moved content to a much more appropriate place. Please see post number 199 as it helps keep context more clear.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Taking this from first principles, it seems that the argumentative line on one or both sides is taking up the stance that constituting a developing embryo as a 'person' makes subservient all rights of the carrier: that is, that the female carrier of the embryo has no rights in such a situation. Yet, that comparison doesn't appear to be correct. Some examples have been cited of the endangerment of the carrier or the abrogation of her rights in cases of infection and physical or geographic displacement, but if I enter into this with no subjective ranking of the value of the life of the woman or the embryo (scoring each only as a binary instance), then risk always appears to be weighted on the side of the embryo; that is, they'll kill it in extremis. Rarely would they bring about the intentional death of the woman; or at least, I don't recall such. Maybe the odd woman in a comatose state, or where she'd made clear her preferences. (No one can poll the embryo about such a choice, which is another if unavoidable flaw in the system.)

So is the question the extent of the extremis - going to another provider, risking death - the real issue, or is it the existence of such risk? Some women certainly have died from such risk-taking, but certainly far more embryos have. Risk - which in the case of the embryo is a genuine all-or-nothing at some point - is weighted on the embryo, not the female. The discussion would benefit from a consideration of actual binary and quantitative risk and outcome but, without considering too far, I suspect I know where such a frank evaluation might lead. I think everyone's talking around subsidiary issues.

4/5 so far.

 

You seem to be misunderstanding my posts. I don't have an issue with the fact that only women can, currently, carry a pregnancy. My issue is with those who want to force women to carry a pregnancy and claim that women have absolutely no concerns with carrying a pregnancy and who claim that women do not deserve to have general rights--or at least that the rights of women can be suspended.

And I am quite happy with granting fetuses personhood. That still does not grant them the right to the use of a woman's body without restriction. Unless, of course, we want to grant any man the unrestricted right to a woman's body, too.

 

Unavoidable flaws in the system.

Reviewing posts 195 or so down makes it clear that there are several misunderstandings -causing no small amount of sheepishness on my side.

However, what you said was out of line and I'm sure you know it. You allowed personal feelings to override your better judgment. It's understandable, but still was uncalled for. Let's assume I support that thing (Again, I don't) - does that advocate that rape is ok? No, because rapists would still be prosecuted, charged, sentenced. The only thing it would advocate is preservation of what could develop into a human being being allowed to do so. Personally, I don't agree with that. I find that as extreme as allowing undefined and frivolous killing.
You and I probably still would disagree with my position. Because I oppose late term frivolous abortion. The law, currently, agrees with that...
It does not mean that I believe women should have no rights, as you also implied. She has plenty of rights and currently, can abort and has plenty of time to consider that hard decision before late term. It's not as Fraggle Rocker implied; the penis rules all. It's that only a woman can carry a child and none of us, not men, not women, made it that way. Unavoidable flaws in the system. It's our nature. It's unfair - I get that. Life is unfair. Sickness is unfair. Economies collapsing is unfair- we cannot claim that people are being stripped of all their rights when they must shoulder the burden of our nature. It's not fair that we have to kill other animals and eat them. It's not fair that their are menstrual cycles and prostate cancer. We evolved this way - we didn't make us this way.
So claiming that all rights are stripped away is not a valid argument. Claiming someone is promoting rape is not a valid argument. They are emotional claims, nothing more.
Granted, I get just as guilty of doing that and if you ever see me do it- feel free to call me out for acting that way.

 

This may explain why I missed it. This thread is not about a specific initiative I did not see, but about the general trend. Got it.

Agreed.
Your comments about the exchange on late term- read and understood- passing over as it's a bit irrelevant for the moment... Edit: this comes across, as I read it, a bit differently than I intended. The point is that it's part of an argument that is off topic.
Time to get down and dirty Edit- this too is off topic but I really would like for someone to explain to me without resorting to just declaring "It's her rights!" without showing how killing 1 minute after birth is somehow different from killing 1 minute before birth:

It goes a bit beyond that though- read on...

It does not make sense to me because we are not discussing whether I believe in Mormonism or Catholicism... It's about the Killing Problem. You did not address what I asked you above. I asked if you could see the dilemma. You did not answer.

But we are talking about a societal belief or opinion that killing other people is... bad. That's at stake here. To put this into perspective, if my next door neighbor holds the opinion that he has the right to kill his wife rather than let her leech off of him and never get a job while he goes to work and pays the bills, what he considers to be a parasite sucking off of his Life Force or what have you we do force our opinion or beliefs on him that killing is not the proper course of action.
I cannot see the difference between killing a baby 1 minute after it is born and 1 minute before it is born. That is that arbitrary line, again. It is nonsense, illogical. It makes no damned sense. So the way I see it, it's not my opinion here, it's the standard of society.
I ask you again, can you explain that? Can you make that make sense? See below-

And I hope that I have, as well. If she's permitted to abort early on, then making it legal to kill late term is too nonsensical, too close to the line or murder. You're granting the right to kill at that point, not the right to govern one's own. They had plenty of time to make that choice by then and they are obligated to see that choice through once past the third trimester- if they haven't aborted by that point then they have chosen to see it through. (This does not apply to a case where mothers life is in danger- that is the right to self defense.) IF they do not abort before third trimester, they lose that option when it has a brain. What is so terrible about that? Where is that depriving someone of their rights? They HAVE those rights! Not executing the action means they did choose.

Am I really failing to show the clarity of this?! If I choose to kill my neighbor, then I am choosing to go to prison. It really is that simple. I lose the right to ... whatever... when I take a life.

Those that believe the right to choose should extend all the way to 1 minute before birth, while there IS a human brain involved, can you make it make sense? Can you give a sound clear reason as to why? Don't just dismiss it slight of hand- this argument is valid.

 

You seem to be advocating the rape of women at least in the sense that you advocate for the use of their reproductive organs despite their wishes.

Let's not call it rape, though. You advocate for the assault of women at least in the sense that you advocate for the use of their reproductive organs despite their wishes.

Let's not call it assault, though. You advocate for the divorcing of women from their rights at least in the sense that you advocate for the use of their reproductive organs despite their wishes.

 

You've gone off on weird accusations, again. Some misunderstanding, huh? I think if there's a misunderstanding, it's because you're too busy seeing red to read the posts in front of you.
Read my post right above yours.
Then, come back and tell me- explain to me, make it clear to me how you can make that make sense, please.
Can anyone make my question in post number 209 make sense?

Oh, and physbang, for your absurd and ridiculous accusations... From my gonads- Fuck off. And Bells, if you try to call me on that, I'll claim I was kidding.

 

On Conjoined Twins

On Conjoined Twins

One human tendency that is sometimes difficult to get people to see is the transformation of context from what another says to what one perceives. This is, to the one, a natural tendency. But, to the other, there are times when it is clearly inappropriate. American politics, for instance, almost ritually distorts what various actors in the arena say; I cannot count the times I have read someone's interpretation of something a politician said and thought, "You know, it is a politician you're talking about."

When considering legal questions, it is sometimes useful to try to think like a judge. For instance, it would be a poor jurist who considers the question of conjoined twins functionally equivalent to mother and fetus.

So let us first start with the obvious question: Whose body is it, Anastasia's or Tatiana's?

Conjoined twins come into existence simultaneously. A mother and fetus do not.

Conjoined twins will continue to exist until separated, or until one or both of them dies. A mother and fetus will not. That is to say, no amount of time passing will see the conjoined twins separate without a surgeon's knife.

Conjoined twins are a statistical anomaly occurring once every 50,000-100,000 births. Pregnancy is not a statistical anomaly.

These circumstances are unavoidable considerations for a jurist delving into the legal status of conjoined twins.

Conjoined twins such as Anastasia and Tatiana are as completely human as they are ever going to be. Joined at the head, Anastasia is the "outward-facing" twin, and Tatiana suffered some brain damage after oxygen loss during heart surgery, but she's also the one with the organs both twins need; Anastasia requires, for survival, her sister's kidneys.

The simple fact that they are quite literally attached to one another is a superficial comparison to mother and fetus; any jurist considering the individual rights of conjoined twins will recognize the difference.

As to how to resolve the issues facing conjoined twins? I wouldn't know where to start. I mean, how do they vote? Would Anastasia and Tatiana each get a ballot? After all, they both have a head, two arms, and two legs, &c. This is, of course, quite obviously a different circumstance than one Seagypsy presented, which depicts two sets of conjoined twins who appear, physically, to be two-headed people. But that difference, in a jurist's view of this comparison, is superficial.

Often, the functional challenge of devising definitions is expressing explicitly what is tacitly recognized. It's clear to most people that when two heads are speaking, you're listening to more than one person. But God help the judges and lawyers tasked with enumerating the legal circumstances of conjoined twins.

There was a case in Britain that culminated in 2000; Rose and Grace Attard were joined at the abdomen, and a court ordered, over parental objections, surgical separation. The quandary was that the separation would kill Rose Attard, but not separating the twins would kill them both. The twenty-hour operation occurred in November, 2000. Grace Attard was three months old in early 2001, when her sister, Rose, was laid to rest at Gozo, Malta.

The Attard parents, at the time, would have preferred to leave the outcome to God, which is why the High Court stepped in.

"We can never forget all the fears we had at the time," explained Michael Attard, three years later. "We could not defy God's will. Now we know God wanted us to have Gracie."

And someday they will tell Grace. "But it's not the right time now," said Rina Attard in 2003. "I want to make sure she never feels guilty about being the sister who lived."

I don't see the conjoined twins comparison as valid. Beyond that, I have no idea what to tell anyone about conjoined twins. Had I been a High Court judge on that case, yes, I probably would have ordered separation. But there are some questions I can only say I'm glad I'll never have to answer.
____________________

Notes:

Bates, Claire. "Praying for a miracle: Conjoined twins beat the odds to reach the age of seven - but now face race against time to be separated". The Daily Mail. October 18, 2011. DailyMail.co.uk. November 6, 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...-choice-Conjoined-twins-7-real-love-life.html

Harris, Paul. "Amazing Grace: three years on". The Daily Mail. July 8, 2003. DailyMail.co.uk. November 6, 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-187689/Amazing-Grace-years-on.html

 

Tiassa, what I see is that you just jumped through hoops to dismiss the question rather than give a valid response. You even specifically dug up an example where one is not dependent on the others organs to survive, to present a case that makes it appear as though the conjoined twin question was absurd.
Wrong.


Here's the bit you missed:
With conjoined twins, you can have a case where one person is using the body of another in order to survive. That is the primary complaint seen about the mother and fetus, that it's using her body to survive.

So, please address it from the proper validity rather than avoiding it.
Try it Now:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Brilliant

Wow, you're fast. I mean, you read the post, figured your response, typed it out, and put it up in three minutes.

Is there something about the statement that, "Had I been a High Court judge on that case, yes, I probably would have ordered separation", that is hard for you to comprehend?

Well, since the statement that, "Had I been a High Court judge on that case, yes, I probably would have ordered separation", is insufficient for you, perhaps you might explain why? Or, at least, formulate a more specific question?

 

I know, right?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's kinda sad, really...

Yes, it is. That case was not relevant to the question. As above ^ answer.

Insufficient because that case was not relevant to the point made, that one can be using the organs of another to survive. If neither twin is in any danger, one twin is using the heart and one lung to survive, the rest of the body belongs to the other twin and that twin decides he doesn't want the smaller twin that has it's own brain attached anymore- removing that person would kill him, what is your ruling for that case?

 

Humbug?

I suppose the outcome depends on the specifics of the case.

Is there a precedent? I mean, aside from a Shel Silverstein poem, I've never heard of such a case.

Well, unless you want to count The X-Files episode "Humbug", which involves a conjoined twin who can detach himself at will for short periods in order to kill people. But, no, I don't think that one counts.

Is there a precedent to start with? Or would you prefer that I simply account for all the potential permutations of such a case, so that you can do the hard lifting of complaining that none of the answers are sufficient, and I can do the easy work of providing more and more answers?

 

[hyperbole mode on]

As you seem to be advocating for the murder of children.

Let's not call it murder, though. You advocate for the ending of their lives through violence despite any struggle they put up.

Let's not call them children, though. You advocate for the killing of full term fetuses that have working brains, hearts, lungs etc are perfectly capable of surviving on their own.

[hyperbole mode off]

It's stupid arguments like the above that ensure that no progress ever gets made on this topic.

 

You are using emotive language to distort what is actually going on here. Giant leaps of definition will not help your cause any more than it helps the LACP supporters cause.

Actually this right is to abort a pregnancy.

As of right now women have the right to abort a fetus that carries their own DNA but a man does not have the right to abort a fetus that carries their DNA without the woman's permission. So it seems the men's rights are being violated at the present. Equal rights would be that if a man cannot choose to abort a fetus that he contributed DNA to, then a woman should also not have the right to abort a fetus that she contributed DNA to.

I am just showing you the fallacy of your logic. I do not actually believe that a man should be allowed to force a woman to have an abortion.

Currently pregnancy does not suspend a woman's human rights. She still has a right to do with her body what she will so long as that activity does not endanger the life of another person. All legal persons have this right.

All human rights are extended only as long as exercising that right does not infringe on the rights of others. I can legally use my body to flail samurai swords around, but if I do it in close proximity to another Person, or even animals in this case, ENDANGERING THEIR LIVES, then I will be taken to jail for at least reckless endangerment.

If I want to drink alcohol I can, but I can not drink alcohol and drive at the same time because it is perceived as recklessly endangering the lives of other persons.
Men also have these restrictions on their rights. Men are not allowed to drink and drive, men are not allowed to use their bodies in any fashion that puts other persons' lives in danger. So I don't see where you get the idea that women are somehow not people and that their human rights are stripped away during pregnancy. Or that they are not treated equally to men.

The disagreement lies in when a person is in fact a person. This distinction has never been legally defined. I agree with the LACP supporters that the distinction DOES need to be legally defined in order to prevent corruption of existing laws intended to protect women. We have many many laws that contradict one another simply because this distinction has not been officially and legally declared.

However, I do not agree with where the LACP draws the line of distinction. I believe their motivation for that line is more religious than scientific. Yes, scientifically, the cluster of cells is considered life. But so is a cluster of cancer cells. If people want to go on about how ALL life is precious, then perhaps they should start practicing that belief and do their very best to NEVER kill anything. I wonder how long it will take them to starve to death if they practice their belief in absolute. When they show me evidence that they TRULY believe ALL life is precious and should be saved I may take the argument that the cluster of cells is worth fighting over seriously.

I also do not agree with where the extreme pro-choicers draw the line either. There is a huge difference, imo, between a cluster of cells and a complex living organism that has a brain and all the internal organs and systems necessary to live independently of the womb. I do not believe that the moment of birth is a fair place to draw that line. And except in cases of imminent danger to the mother's life (which would fall under self defense) I do not believe a woman should have the right to kill this, what I consider, a person.

I believe that even the line of distinction that I draw is a bit arbitrary because it is such a huge grey area. It's even a compromise on my own principles that I say it should be somewhere between 2nd and 3rd trimester. IMO, it is the only position that doesn't require illogical extreme leaps of definitions and/or faith to justify it. It is merely the lesser of many perceived evils. I believe the mother's rights are as important as the unborn child's. I believe until one person threatens the life of the other, whether intentionally or not, the other person has no right to inflict death upon the other person. And I personally believe an unborn child is a person when it has the physical ability and likelihood of long term survival outside the womb.

And considering conjoined twins, even in cases where one is parasitic, both are considered legal persons. Even the parasitic twin is a person. So dependency on another human body, in general, to survive does not disqualify the parasitic twin as a person. However, not being able to survive long term outside the womb usually does make it legal to remove it before it has died from the fully formed twin,knowing that doing so will ultimately kill the twin, in order to safe the life of that fully formed twin. Again it comes down to self defense again.

I also disagree with LACP but your argument is as flawed as theirs that "God will find a way to save both lives" when it comes to deciding which life to save.

If you are going to stop LACP, try to use honest logical arguments, otherwise you make all of us, who are opposed to LACP, look as stupid as those in charge of the LACP initiative.

 

I never said their position wasn't repugnant or that you SHOULD agree with them.

But there are more than two positions expressed in this thread. You and I are not in the same group.

1-There are the extreme pro-lifers (supporters of the LACP - possibly LG and Bowser),

2 -There are the moderate pro-choicers(those who believe person-hood does not start at conception but does start before birth- Neverfly and myself).

3-There are the extreme pro-choicers who believe person-hood should be begin until after a complete successful birth has taken place- Tiassa and yourself, I won't say Fraggle Rocker because he has already stated that he isn't allowed to express an opinion because his wife forbids it)

I understand that, but the point I was trying to make, is that there are laws that if interpreted correctly, even in light of fetal person-hood, the mother would have grounds for self defense. They would have to specifically word the law to say, women are lower undeserving lifeforms. They cannot word it that way though because it would violate the constitution. They are making an argument they cannot legally win. Unless the lawyers fighting their position are not thinking clearly and simply overlooking the fact of legal homicide. Tiassa says we need to understand all the implications of the wording of a law and anticipate every possible interpretation of it. Well if we do that here, they have not a leg to stand on in preventing a woman from having an abortion, even in late term, if her life is reasonably perceived to be in danger. In order to get their proposed law to take affect they would have to word it in such a way that it does not violate any constitutional amendments. If they want to make an amendment to the constitution they will have to prove that their proposal does not violate any other existing human rights. And all people in the USA have a constitutional right to defend their life, even if that act of defense is fatal to the one who threatened their life.

I agree, their perceptions are skewed by their delusion of god. Their interpretation of reality is very much like that of a serial killer (sorry for bringing that term up again, I have been studying the psychology of a serial killer and it is kinda stuck in my head, I am even started to see some of my own thinking to be similar to a serial killer's, but thats off topic).

It is easy to take leaps of logic when your reality is based on a fairy tale. A good legal defense against their position imo, is to get them to declare that the reason it is a person is because God said so, the minute they say that they have to throw it out of court. And that really is their only reason for insisting their views are correct.

I agree with you there. And I don't believe that private hospitals should be allowed to practice medicine in anyway that they feel is right according to their fairytale beliefs. Perhaps if they start getting sued or charged with wrongful death and medical malpractice they would lose enough money to think differently. After all, the Catholic organization worships money not god. (I am making a distinction between Catholicism as a faith and Catholicism as a business).

 

I disagree that it would be a poor jurist. I think it would be a poor jurist to not consider the implications of the wording of a law, in light of the fact, prosecutors often find a way to present an interpretation outside of the intended purpose of the law and succeed in doing so simply because it was worded badly. As you worded the what defines person-hood, it would put parasitic conjoined twins in danger of losing person-hood.

This dances dangerously close to saying that because someone is older their person-hood is more valid than someone else's. But I guess you would have a point. After all children are not allowed to vote. Our society does not grant someone full person-hood until the age of 18. But does it also mean that a 50 year old can violate the rights of a 40 year old simply because the 50 year old was born first? I know it sounds absurd but you cannot deny that fanatical prosecutors have actually made equally outrageous claims as interpretations of laws and won, simply because poor vague wording in the law itself. Vagueness is one of the more common reasons for laws to be shot down in congress.

I agree, but doesn't this observation simply make abortion a permanent solution to a temporary problem? Like suicide?

side note:

Spoiler

Suicide btw is illegal and your liberty will be taken from you if law enforcement decides that you intend to kill yourself. So actually, the intent to commit suicide is essentially illegal. So much for being free to do what we like with our own bodies.

It presents an argument that abortion should only be illegal in the case of life threatening situation. Because only in a life threatening situation is the relationship between a fetus and a mother similar to that of conjoined twins, where the intact twin is not allowed to kill the parasitic one. It is creating a paradox, do you not see that?

Agreed. Pregnancy is not a statistical anomaly. But are life threatening pregnancies statistical anomalies? at least in the developed western world?

Keeping in mind jurists can be any one of us participating in this thread. You cannot assume what a jurist, the common average citizen, at least in the USA, can or will recognize. It is the attorneys in the case that are responsible for making sure what is recognized and how. Every jurist will view the facts of the case through the veil of their own life experiences and interpret what they see based on every aspect of their own belief systems. And you cannot disqualify a jurist simply because they believe in god. Even an agnostic may allow their uncertainty to dictate that they err on the side of caution that maybe there is a god.

Exactly. How can anyone be so certain in terms of person-hood in regards to the unborn but not so certain in terms of conjoined twins? I believe the certainty that the unborn is not a person until birth is as emotionally motivated as the certainty that the unborn is a person at conception.

The LACP supporters believe their religious rights are being violated by not declaring person-hood at conception. After all, their faith allows them to condemn women, homosexuals, and non believers and any law that contradicts that is a violation of their religious freedom.

Extreme pro-choicers who believe person-hood starts at birth believe that basic human rights are being denied to women if personhood is not established legally at birth and no sooner.

moderate pro-choicers who believe the unborn at a particular state of fetal development is a viable human being deserving of person-hood but is being denied that right and so the right to live right to live is simply because of it's temporary dependency on another person to survive.

Do you see? Everyone has a seemingly legitimate claim to one degree or another. And every claim can be legitimately refuted. So how can anyone be so certain in their position?

I choose my position of moderation, simply because I feel it will piss off the fewest people. Is that a good reason? No but it will make the most people feel good and at the end of the day, I believe the majority of our laws are made in order to make us feel good. We vote our conscience and I believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Previously you indicated, unless I misunderstood what you meant, that the fact that the mother is an independent physical reality grants her more validity as a person over that which exists inside her womb(what exists inside her womb requires her body to survive-even if only temporarily).

This is why I brought up conjoined twins. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, attached more meaning to it than you intended. But isn't that what lawyers do when they want to show a law inadequate? I find the implication that Independent physical reality gives a person more validity over another to be inadequate, vague, and too easy to corrupt.

I don't see the relevance of when either of them come into existence. If time of birth really relevant to when one person's personhood is more valid than another's. If that's the case then the murder of any born child should not be illegal, as an adult who may kill a child is more valid as a human than the child is, since they were born first. I do not agree with that premise, I am only showing you how your words, like any law, can be interpreted. As you said we need to think like judges. Perhaps before we post, we should consider ALL the possible interpretations of what we type.