But people in the state who don't even drive have contributed to the nicely paved roads you will use.
People who don't have kids help pay for other people's kid's education....it what America is about.....it's how it's done . NO one is totally independent , not you , not anyone...
It's a silly snarky remark but I sense that you, after reading a few posts, are actually becoming aware that's it's silly ........
If you plan to start a business with your new truck it is likely that your neighbor's taxes will help subsidize your truck in some way (e.g. tax incentives to help you get started with your business) although your neighbor might never get to drive your truck or have a need for whatever service you provide. If you need a new truck because you wrecked your old truck, it is likely that your neighbor's taxes helped pay for the salary and equipment of the rescue workers who helped dig you out of the wreck, and your neighbor's insurance premiums probably helped cover the check that your insurance company wrote to help you replace your old truck (even if you made a foolish mistake that led to your accident). We are all connected... but does this really have any bearing on your view of when, exactly, human cell(s) become a person?
Any restriction is abortion that you support is the state having control over pregnant women, furthermore the road you drive your truck on has been paid for by people who may not want to have their tax used for road construction and maintenance . .you want to drive your truck on a road, you pay for it. - - - Updated - - - Are you restricted by the state in buying your new truck .. no, so your comparison is a false equivalence fallacy. - - - Updated - - - nice to know you think a truck is equivalent to a woman.
You must have overlooked the question... does this really have any bearing on your view of when, exactly, human cell(s) become a person?
When the mind is activated (which happens on or about the moment of birth). From that point on, the mind is incorporating and evaluating experiences in a way that is not possible for mice and sea slugs and all those other creatures that have a pulse, and EEG readings, but do NOT have the capacity for person-hood.
Scientists who study the development of the brain know that the cerebrum does not begin global neuronal integration until the last few weeks of gestation. Before that, the signals from the nerves are only meaningful to the primitive brain stem which is only capable of providing reflex responses. When does global neuronal integration begin? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/ Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester. I interpret that to mean 26 +/- 2 weeks + 8 weeks = 34 +/- 2 weeks for the ONSET of neuronal integration. The article also explains that the environment of the womb suppresses any brain activity (sedatives in the blood and low oxygen levels). Sometime in those last four weeks or so of the gestation timeline, (a) the fetus will wake up and begin struggling to get out (fetal distress) or (b) the doctor will take actions to initiate birth (a process which will wake up the fetus). At that point, you have a human body with an active mind which is incorporating and evaluating experiences in a way that is not possible for mice and sea slugs. At that point, the newborn begins a thread of experience and thought that defines its person-hood.
All of which means zero IF as most pro-lifers insist the unborn are person's, we do not consider the mental competence of the person who is injuring us without consent before defending ourselves and neither does the law ... in fact the law goes out of it's way to protect people from non-consented injuries from others regardless of their mental competence.
That is true. If we are going to assume that the zef is already worthy of person-hood then we must assume it has its own selfish reasons for attaching to the uterine lining and stealing resources from the host without her consent. If we are to assume the zef is a person based on imagination and mythology then the zef must be secretly responsible for its own actions as well.
An apple tree blossom is a potential apple, but it it has no moment of person-hood (even after it ripens and falls off the tree).
It seems to me that this thread illustrates a common human misconception We use language to refer to reality. And then presume there is some absolute correspondence between our words and underlying reality. The idea of life seems blindingly obvious... until you try to pin it down. And there in lies the problem In the case of personhood there certainly is no magic moment when personhood begins or when it ends. From a legal perspective life certainly does not begin at conception.... this can be easily tested by reviewing rights of inheritance. A fetus has no standing to nherit anything... full stop
You're still pushing this line of argument? Okay, i'll play. There appears to be only three types of law that this claim could apply to: criminal law, contract law, or tort law. Which one do you have in mind?
None, the foetus would be deemed mentally incompetent i.e. unable to be legally held responsible for its actions ... however the mental incompetence of the foetus does not effect the right of the woman to defend herself from non consented injuries. Just as you can defend yourself against a mentally incompetent person who injuries you without consent so can she. Legally the fetal actions would fall under objective fault, people can be objectively at fault whether or not they have the mental capacity or requisite knowledge to know that their behavior is criminal - Source : LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law Page 212-213 So it would fall under Constutional law, specifically the right of self defence inferred by the 2nd Amendment.
Several questions (and I say this merely for the purposes of argument, because legal justifications themselves require other forms of justification, namely why is the law right? - but that aside for the moment, let's just look to see if this legal argument is itself convincing): 1) How does LaFave and Scott on criminal law apply to the issue if, as you state here, criminal law doesn't apply? 2) Doesn't LaFave and Scott's discussion of action in 3.7 (as you know, pages 212-213 are part of this section) necessarily presuppose agent volition and/or intentionality? 3) Doesn't Constitutional law itself govern criminal, contract, and tort law? How then is moving the issue to constitutionality, a far more general treatment, help to clarify the more specific engagements in the other three? This would lead to the following concerns: 4) If you grant legal personhood to the fetus, doesn't the equal protection clause of the Constitution grant the fetus the same rights? Furthermore, in cases of pregnancy in which threats of harm are not immediate, wouldn't self-defense models involving two rights bearing entities (the fetus and the woman) with conflicting claims have to be subject to due process procedures? Wouldn't this issue of distinguishing whose right to self-defense is applicable then hinge on the issue of responsibility and causality? 5) Wouldn't this then mean the issue of assumption of risk would have to be addressed and wouldn't this put the issue squarely in the realm of tort law (since as you suggest, the lack of mental competence would be problematic for criminal law, and mutuality, necessary for contract law, would be absent)? 6) Aren't there degrees of risk assumption that bring with it differing justifications of self-defense? For example, if I run out onto the freeway as a game and I'm about to be hit by a fast moving car, can I use the 2nd amendment to justify my right to shoot the driver, if it's the only way to save myself? Clearly It seems unlikely that that argument would find much sympathy in a court room. On the other hand, walking down the sidewalk would not seem to assume the risk of being hit by a wayward driver (even though it's a remote possibility), and I would seem to have a strong claim for defending myself if that is the only means for my avoiding harm. But even if one invokes the second amendment here, does the right to self-defense in that amendment give one the right to have someone perform that protection on your behalf? It seems more is needed to adequately address the issue of abortion than just the second amendment.
A couple of things I might contribute: “Person”. One could fairly easily argue that a unique DNA structure makes every human life form its own individual regardless of any other conditions. A child in utero would have biological reasons for attaching itself. Selfish would imply consciousness. A child in utero would have the implied consent of the mother. The mother was not invaded by a living organism, she produced it.