Personhood and Abortion Rights

[_EAllusion]

There isn't a law written in nature that your transactions are something the public has a right to know, but what is in your uterus is something the public doesn't have a right to know. You might think there are good reasons for the former, but not the latter, but good luck creating an argument that it's so important to protect the privacy of what's in your uterus that you are justified killing someone to protect that right.

Believe it or not, some of us aren't invested in creating an argument.

I am, however, responding to someone who was. Because you flipped out at the response, I thought I'd explain what I was saying a little more.

[_EAllusion]

What I do with my uterus is none of your business, thank you.

If you want me to answer the question: spending money isn't inherently a private matter at all. Discussions about how to spend everyone's money take place everywhere. You go to the grocery store and spend your money right in front of strangers. Spending money is about as public an activity as it gets.

Uterus, not so much. In an office with a doctor, with privacy protected by the government.

There are many transactions you can engage in where people not party to the transactions have no way of knowing what occurred. This likely is the vast majority of transactions you engage in. On the flip side, strangers also find out information about what's going on with people's uterus's all the time. Surely you've overheard someone talking about their pregnancy at least once, right?

Further, people generally prefer that the vast majority of information about their finances stay a private matter. The government directly violates this privacy by doing things like finding out how much money you make. This is not something the public inherently knows. You may think this is justified, but it is a violation of privacy to achieve it.

If you instead argue that spending money isn't inherently private because it takes more than one person to do that, then your reference to discussing information with a doctor undercuts that line of reasoning.

[_Jersey Girl]

I am, however, responding to someone who was. Because you flipped out at the response, I thought I'd explain what I was saying a little more.

No one flipped out. Nice try.

[_EAllusion]

I am, however, responding to someone who was. Because you flipped out at the response, I thought I'd explain what I was saying a little more.

No one flipped out. Nice try.

You said, "Holy ____." If you don't want to call that flipping out, knock yourself out. Whatever you want to call it, it certainly sounds like a strong reaction to a trite assertion. Hence my clarifying what I was saying. You might not be arguing anything, but my post most certainly is replying to an argument.

[_Markk]

You should then pay attention to what you stated. You stated they should have a choice to abort in situations of rape. That is a statement that puts the women's right to choose above the right of the fetus to live. You can't have it both ways Markk.

Themis, I said a lot more than that in context, I also said it does not make it right. If you believe that fine, I do not...and you have every "right" to support that opinion. But please quote me in entirety and in context.

I think Jersey Girl covered this fairly well. There are attributes to person-hood that a fetus does not have. Some of them are extremely important in regards to the rights of a women and her body and the rights of a fetus which is still very much apart of her.

Well, I disagree, I don't believe life is a club, or any person can be excluded from being a more special person with more individual rights. Are there certain children that can or should be excluded from childhood, or adulthood?

What attribute does a more developed person have that a less developed person does not have, in regards deciding a innocent persons life? I don't get that at all.

Even babies have not developed all the attributes of person-hood, but late term we know they can feel pain, so I would think discouraging late term abortions would be good except of course reason I gave in the other post.

What attribute does a baby have that would allow them to live outside the womb, that the don't have in the womb...I am really curious what these attributes are?

So is the reason you don't like abortions and would "discourage" them is because it causes pain to the child? In other words it is okay if the are killed, but it should be a painless death...it that a fair assessment of what you are saying?

Who in your mind should discourage this at the social level, and how, and who decides the benchmark of when the child feel pain?

I noticed you never really gave MAP a fair chance when Kevin brought it that it if used shortly after sex it can stop pregnancy before it begins.

yes I did. I told him and you why I draw the line where I do..I was clear, very open, transparent and honest...and even conceded that "right or wrong" it was what I believe.

Kevin started with a false premise by stating it does not happen for five days, then went to 3-5 days , when it fact fertilization can start minutes, or hours, or 5 days from intercourse. It can take five days in that the sperm can hang out in the reproductive system of a female for up to five days, but it could also be minutes or hours until the sperm meets the egg.

His assertion was that the MAP tale the next morning was not terminating the process in that he claimed it did not start for five days. I corrected him and told him we have no way of knowing that, so his point is mute.

So again he started with a very inaccurate premise.

You did not comment on the photo I pasted?

[_Jersey Girl]

You said, "Holy ____." If you don't want to call that flipping out, knock yourself out. Whatever you want to call it, it certainly sounds like a strong reaction to a trite assertion. Hence my clarifying what I was saying. You might not be arguing anything, but my post most certainly is replying to an argument.

Yeah that was me rolling my eyes in writing as a reaction to your post. You completely suck at determing the motivations and intentions of others.

[_Jersey Girl]

I think Jersey Girl covered this fairly well. There are attributes to person-hood that a fetus does not have. Some of them are extremely important in regards to the rights of a women and her body and the rights of a fetus which is still very much apart of her.

Well, I disagree, I don't believe life is a club, or any person can be excluded from being a more special person with more individual rights. Are there certain children that can or should be excluded from childhood, or adulthood?

What attribute does a more developed person have that a less developed person does not have, in regards deciding a innocent persons life? I don't get that at all.

Markkkk if I may try to clear the confusion again. When you are discussing "person" you aren't discussing the term "personhood" that Themis is discussing.

Person and Personhood are two different concepts. Yeah, I know it sounds crazy. Go figure.

Let me runaround and try to find a good definition for you. I think it might help but who knows?

[_EAllusion]

You said, "Holy ____." If you don't want to call that flipping out, knock yourself out. Whatever you want to call it, it certainly sounds like a strong reaction to a trite assertion. Hence my clarifying what I was saying. You might not be arguing anything, but my post most certainly is replying to an argument.

Yeah that was me rolling my eyes in writing as a reaction to your post. You completely suck at determing the motivations and intentions of others.

"Holy ____" - The classic way one rolls their eyes.

Can I have your monthly finances please? I hear it's not private.

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh well I have got a wiki. Here's the beginning of the entry and if you read on you'll see material about the U.S. court cases and all.

Personhood is the status of being a person. Defining personhood is a controversial topic in philosophy and law and is closely tied with legal and political concepts of citizenship, equality, and liberty. According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personhoo ... personhood

If we accept the above as a definition of personhood (and no one says that you have to, it's central to Roe v. Wade, so it's best that we understand what it means particularly if we are anti-abortion and pro-life all the way.

Let me yank out this one part.

According to law, only a natural person or legal personality has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability.

Let me try a few rusty old examples. According to the law, the fetus doesn't meet the criteria for personhood. If you think otherwise, I would have to ask you if...

1. The fetus has rights under the law?
2. Protections under the law?
3. Privileges under the law?
4. Responsibilities under the law?
5. Legal liability under the law?

The answer to that would be "no". The fetus has only those rights that the adult wishes to grant them. The fetus cannot represent itself, it cannot make decisions, it cannot assume legal liability and it cannot accept responsibility because (take a deep breath here) ....

it is basically a parasite living off the body of the mother.

You see a person in the fetus. I see a person in the fetus.

The law doesn't see a person in the fetus.

Is it kind of a set up job? Yeah, I think it is. But it is the very underpinning of the laws that establish a woman's right to choose.

If the first child abuse cases were prosecuted based on animal rights laws and if this is what it takes to get a woman's right to choose...I'm going to take it.

The rest of us who don't like it can take action to make the plight of women in such cases easier or shut up about it. Since I can't access all women in need, I prefer to let the law do what it does while I do what I do.

Keep in mind, and I think you are old enough to recall this, that we come from a generation (or at least I do) in which a girl pregnant out of wedlock was publicly shamed, humiliated, and often times sent away to have her baby or forced to put it up for adoption by her parents or in some cases forced to undergo the shotgun wedding.

NOW we're shaming "her" for her choice to terminate her pregancy as she sees fit.

Do you see how in this society we can never let women be who the hell they are and respect them as human beings? That we resist our ability to grant a woman HER right to personhood?

I know you must remember those days just like I do. We couldn't be that far apart in age. We've come a long way (no pun intended, baby.) I would like to see the caretaking of pregnant women who are in need become a societal norm in this country and I'm not talking about friggin' medicaid.

[_Jersey Girl]

I want to say this one thing. What women don't need are protestors yelling and shouting at them outside of Planned Parenthood carrying graphic images on placards. If those people are so damned against abortion and they want to do something about it directly, then why in the hell aren't they compassionately approaching a woman and asking her "How can I help you?"

Those are my words. Every. single. time. regardless of the choice that is being made or has already been made, regardless of the choice itself.

Why is that so hard?

Because it's easier to spend an afternoon yelling and screaming at women than it is to really come alongside her, get under her, and lift her up.

That's why.

(Let's hope I don't have another speech in me!)