You're wrong. Your government ( and most others) only give personhood status to born human beings, so foetuses aren't stripped of it. They've never had it.
Just as blacks never had personhood until the Emancipation Proclamation and onward. Thankfully many other cultures, such as Malta, Ireland, South Korea, etc have always recognized the personhood of unborn children - only America has become so liberalized and apathetic what we put a woman's right to sleep around irresponsibly over the rights of an innocent child. And biologically, a fetus will always be a person, regardless of what is done in the legal realm to ignore that fact.
Biology has nothing to say about personhood, which is a philosophical or moral issue, not a question of natural sciences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_human_personhood
Rights to bodily autonomy are well-established. The right to life is not. Why? If the right to life is paramount, then one of your kidneys can be forcible harvested to save a life. You can be forced into near-slavery to save lives, because right-to-life takes precedence over your liberty. We could ban _anything_ that remotely threatens "life", and demand anything that supports "life". Making the right-to-life paramount creates a whole lot of extremely unpleasant results, so we don't do it for practicality reasons. That's cuckoobananas idiocy. Women get abortions because they don't want to be pregnant, not because they want to kill. No difference in the sense that both scenarios are deranged fantasies that only come from sleazy pro-lifers who can't address the issue honestly.
This is a pretty poor comparison, since normal pregnancy does not even remotely have the risks of transplantation operation, and also does not leave permanent damage comparable to a missing organ. Also, its not saving just any other life. The woman directly and knowingly caused the situation that makes another life dependent on her. The correct comparison would be harvesting a kidney from someone who directly caused the condition of the patient that needs the transplantation, for example from an attacker who injured his kidney. Another correct analogy would be inviting someone into your house, then trying to force him out when there is a life-threatening blizzard outside. If we assume the fetus is a person with rights such as a right to live, abortion in case of normal pregnancy cannot be justified.
Excuse me, pregnancy/childbirth leaves permanent damage to the woman. Some are damaged worse than others so it is difficult to compare with organ donation, but people can live just fine with one kidney for example. Even blood or bone marrow donation is not required and it is difficult to see how any damage is done from those. By saying the woman "caused the situation" is merely blaming her and forcing her to remain pregnant because she is to "blame", is punishment.
No, the fact that the woman caused the situation is a perfectly good justification for not allowing abortion, if we assume that fetus has a right to live. In such case, we have to look for why is this right threatened and who caused the situation, and all those pro-life arguments about women knowing the risk of conceiving and pregnancy in advance when having sex are valid. The only logically consistent way how to allow elective abortion is not assuming that the fetus is equal in rights with persons.
The women did not consent to pregnancy, she consented to sex. Those are two completely different things, just as consenting to driving is not consenting to a car accident. But then, maybe we should adopt pro-life principles here, and refuse medical care to anyone who gets into a car accident, unless it can be proven they weren't at fault. Kind of an ugly society there, always seeking to place blame on someone.
But is seems that an unborn child is to blame just for coming into being. And no one can say they are guilty of anything else. It is not about guilt.. it is about protecting human life.
In a car accident that you caused (even though not deliberately), you are indeed morally and legally obliged to save the life of the victims if you can. If a human life with a right to live is threatened, every society should seek to place the blame on someone. Thats good. I am pro-choice, but I dont like bad arguments. Arguing that the fetus has a right to live, and then trying to justify abortion is not the way to go. Just say that fetus is not a person (therefore its a thing) and all those pro-life arguments wont matter, since they apply only to persons (with rights).
They were stripped of their personhood when they were adducted and made slaves. No, no, no...none of those countries recognise unborn children as persons.
That "innocent human life must be protected" is nonsense? That "innocent human life must be protected" is unjustifiable? Are you on drugs or something? Remember, in abortion we are talking about innocent human beings, humans who cannot defend themselves. Only a complete imbecile would say that it is nonsense or unjustifibale to protect innocent humans who cannot defend themselves.
I hope we don't adopt the idiotic comparisons you bring up here. So pregnancy/baby is to a car wreck as......????????????? Sure the woman consented to pregnancy. She had sex didn't she? And so did he. You see mature adult, human beings, understand that sex begets kids. Once again, our public school sex education fails our children.
You are right…but they don't see it that way. These people are for infanticide…late term abortion. They don't think the unborn is worth saving. Can you believe that. As I said in another thread….talking to most in these abortions threads …is looking at the face of evil.
And you missed one other thing .that they also believe in late term abortion. Because if its the mothers choice, her body even the unborn at nine months has no rights.
Yes it does. Because late term abortion is outlawed in most states. Why? If its not a person why place rules on the woman as to when she can abort. Science tells us when viability happens. Science says that at conception .it is not a rock, not a tree, not a pencil .it is human a human living being.
Every time I think I have seen the dumbest posts possible, an even stupider one comes along. Are you saying that my biology does not make me a human person, but philosophy does? ROFL!!! A philosopher did not give birth to me, my mom did!! What a ta ra ra GOON de ay
It wasn't a comparison. Seriously, learn some basic logic and reading comprehension. Given your ignorance here, your attempt at condescension looks ludicrous. In no other area do we decide to assign blame before handing out medical care. You want a single exception for abortion. Why? "BECAUSE I SAY SO!", the all purpose pro-life answer to everything. Sorry, we don't have to cater to your authoritarian whims. This is about liberty. A woman's body does not belong to you, your church or your state, and you'll just have to learn to deal with that. Yep. They're mindless mantras, more or less devoid of meaning, spouted mainly by unthinking zealots who are incapable of discussing the issue rationally. But if you'd like, I have no trouble discussing it in detail here, being it will cause you to squirm and evade in a most amusing manner. Just what is "innocent human life"? Why attach the emotional-laden "innocent" term to it? Is guilty human life also precious and in need of protection? What makes it guilty? Why should human life be protected? And how should we do it? For example, since smoking causes more abortions than surgical abortion, do we need an immediate total smoking ban to protect this innocent human life? Not the point. The point is that even if you cause the accident, you get medical care yourself, no questions asked. No one ever says "well, this is the victim, so the causer of the accident gets medical help afterwards, even if they're more injured." Fine. Now show that _anything_ has a "right to live". Discuss the strength of this supposed right as opposed to other rights. For example, does the right to live outweigh the right to property? Because if it does, I can confiscate whatever someone owns in order to save lives. Good thing, then, that I never even came close to making such an argument, and have been stating the precise opposite. I've been saying that there is no significant "right to live", not just for fetuses, but for anything. It's kind of a right, but it's way, way down on the list of priorities.
You're not bright enough to be relying on insults. And it doesn't help that you're trying to push such a sick, dishonest and immoral philosophy. Yep. Personhood is a social, legal and historical construct, not a biological one. We knew what a person was long before we knew any details of biology. Over almost all of planet earth over all of human history, personhood has been assigned at birth. You seem to think you screaming "BECAUSE I SAY SO!" is a good enough reason to overturn that standard. It's not. Let's get things straight. No one believes zygotes are people. It's an idiot claim. Specks aren't people. See? Speck. Person. Speck. Person. Two different things. Even my cat understands this difference, and she has a brain the size of a walnut. Presumably your brain is larger, which mean you're intentionally playing dumb when you pretend you think specks are people.
Actually, in the USA, slaves were always legally considered persons. Says so right in the Constitution, "three fifths of all other Persons."
BTW, the 3/5's came so that the South with their millions of slaves wouldnt dominate the U.S. Congress based on population....it was political and not racial.
I think a persons right to live indeed outweights the right to property. Thats why basic welfare and healthcare payed from taxes (which are basically property theft) is OK. Nope, its one of the most important basic rights, certainly more important than for example right to property (hence stealing in order to save lives or health is moral and legal). And many liberties are restricted or banned because they may threaten the right to live or health of others, so its also more important than a right to liberty.
Cady said, You were asked a question . Would you oppose a law that stripped newborns of their personhood status? You answered.. Obviously I would, but I don't see that as being likely to happen." You also said this "You misinterpreted your definition, and you are assuming that the unborn are human beings. That has never been established. You are all over the place .You say on this forum that you have always believed they were persons after birth .then you said here nothing has ever been established that says newborns are human beings. And you want personhood taken away. What kind of person are you?
LMAO Why did you have children? ARE you damaged good grannie? LMAO Maybe you are but I am not. You are saying that every woman who ever had a child is damaged. LMAO
